| Groups | Blog | Home |
dotnet ado.net : Jet vs. Sql Server Express
I'm working on a new application and need to select a database for it. I was wondering if anyone had any views on tradeoffs between going with Jet/Access vs. SQL Server 2005 Express. The database is going to sit on a server. I'm planning to implement .net remoting from my client objects to a wrapper around the database, so the database will be transparent to the distributed client apps. I'll also access the database for ad hoc reporting and data manipulation. I'm experienced with Access but haven't used SQL Server, so I would tend to lean toward using Access/Jet. However, it seems most of the attention is on SQL Server in everything I see about VS 2005. Is Jet still getting attention? What are the pros/cons of SQL Server vs. Jet? Thanks for any help
SQL Server Express Edition has come a long way since the first versions of
MSDE. It has a real team at MS working on its functionality and usability. I think the choice becomes more "why use JET" when it's been found unsuitable for databases that contain healthcare or other data that must be secure. It's not designed to be used in a server--it never was. It is best accessed through its native interface (DAO)--not ADO, ODBC or OLEDB or ADO.NET. It's COM-based and dependent on the MDAC stack which is of itself problematic. No, SQL Server Express is not as simple to use as JET. Deployment is more difficult, connecting is more difficult, management is more difficult. However, given the more stringent requirements of today's secure and high-performance systems where customers actually expect their data to be secure and accessible by the right people, using SQL Server is a given. -- ____________________________________ William (Bill) Vaughn Author, Mentor, Consultant Microsoft MVP INETA Speaker www.betav.com/blog/billva www.betav.com Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. __________________________________ [quoted text, click to view] "kcamhi" <kcamhi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:BE0E8F2B-3A40-4751-AB6E-3728B389A7E8@microsoft.com... > Greetings - > > I'm working on a new application and need to select a database for it. I > was wondering if anyone had any views on tradeoffs between going with > Jet/Access vs. SQL Server 2005 Express. > > The database is going to sit on a server. I'm planning to implement .net > remoting from my client objects to a wrapper around the database, so the > database will be transparent to the distributed client apps. > > I'll also access the database for ad hoc reporting and data manipulation. > > I'm experienced with Access but haven't used SQL Server, so I would tend > to > lean toward using Access/Jet. However, it seems most of the attention is > on > SQL Server in everything I see about VS 2005. > > Is Jet still getting attention? > > What are the pros/cons of SQL Server vs. Jet? > > Thanks for any help > > kc
[quoted text, click to view] "kcamhi" <kcamhi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:BE0E8F2B-3A40-4751-AB6E-3728B389A7E8@microsoft.com... > Greetings - > > I'm working on a new application and need to select a database for it. I > was wondering if anyone had any views on tradeoffs between going with > Jet/Access vs. SQL Server 2005 Express. > > The database is going to sit on a server. > . . . I didn't even read the rest of your post. If the database is on a server, use SQL Server. Not Jet. David
You definately want to go for SQL Server. It's a FAR better system in every
aspect, it's faster, more powerful, scales FAR better (although scaling better than Access is hardly an accomplishment), you get real RDBMS features (sprocs, triggers, a real security model, etc, etc), you get to use the "full-featured" SqlClient which is great, etc, etc. Jet is pretty much the very last DB I ever would use (well after Oracle, SQL Server of any flavor, DB2, PostgreSQL, Sybase, etc etc). The answer isn't so much "use SQL Server" as much as "anything BUT Jet"! The 2 don't even compare, one is a office-worker/end-user type toy-ish DB, and the other is a serious, high-quality/reliability, powerful, scalable, enterprise-grade RDBMS system with support, an upgrade path, good tools, etc, etc. Hope that helps :) [quoted text, click to view] "kcamhi" <kcamhi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:BE0E8F2B-3A40-4751-AB6E-3728B389A7E8@microsoft.com... > Greetings - > > I'm working on a new application and need to select a database for it. I > was wondering if anyone had any views on tradeoffs between going with > Jet/Access vs. SQL Server 2005 Express. > > The database is going to sit on a server. I'm planning to implement .net > remoting from my client objects to a wrapper around the database, so the > database will be transparent to the distributed client apps. > > I'll also access the database for ad hoc reporting and data manipulation. > > I'm experienced with Access but haven't used SQL Server, so I would tend > to > lean toward using Access/Jet. However, it seems most of the attention is > on > SQL Server in everything I see about VS 2005. > > Is Jet still getting attention? > > What are the pros/cons of SQL Server vs. Jet? > > Thanks for any help > > kc
Forgot to add that link with some more infos about JET's limitations:
http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2195 I think that page alone will convince you to never use JET ever again ;) There are tons of MS KB articles recommending SQL Server over JET one could link to as well... Keep in mind SQL Server Express is MUCH better than MSDE too (and less limited). I personally have many gripes over JET (from excessive network traffic, ridiculously slow, files' security goes broken once you try "compact and repair", etc etc). I find the amount of people still using/putting up with JET nowadays pretty amazing... [quoted text, click to view] "john smith" <john@smith.com> wrote in message news:u8dlDEaDGHA.412@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > You definately want to go for SQL Server. It's a FAR better system in > every aspect, it's faster, more powerful, scales FAR better (although > scaling better than Access is hardly an accomplishment), you get real > RDBMS features (sprocs, triggers, a real security model, etc, etc), you > get to use the "full-featured" SqlClient which is great, etc, etc. Jet is > pretty much the very last DB I ever would use (well after Oracle, SQL > Server of any flavor, DB2, PostgreSQL, Sybase, etc etc). The answer isn't > so much "use SQL Server" as much as "anything BUT Jet"! The 2 don't even > compare, one is a office-worker/end-user type toy-ish DB, and the other is > a serious, high-quality/reliability, powerful, scalable, enterprise-grade > RDBMS system with support, an upgrade path, good tools, etc, etc. > > Hope that helps :) > > "kcamhi" <kcamhi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:BE0E8F2B-3A40-4751-AB6E-3728B389A7E8@microsoft.com... >> Greetings - >> >> I'm working on a new application and need to select a database for it. I >> was wondering if anyone had any views on tradeoffs between going with >> Jet/Access vs. SQL Server 2005 Express. >> >> The database is going to sit on a server. I'm planning to implement .net >> remoting from my client objects to a wrapper around the database, so the >> database will be transparent to the distributed client apps. >> >> I'll also access the database for ad hoc reporting and data manipulation. >> >> I'm experienced with Access but haven't used SQL Server, so I would tend >> to >> lean toward using Access/Jet. However, it seems most of the attention is >> on >> SQL Server in everything I see about VS 2005. >> >> Is Jet still getting attention? >> >> What are the pros/cons of SQL Server vs. Jet? >> >> Thanks for any help >> >> kc > >
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:04:02 -0800, kcamhi
[quoted text, click to view] <kcamhi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: [snip] [quoted text, click to view] >I'm experienced with Access but haven't used SQL Server, so I would tend to >lean toward using Access/Jet. However, it seems most of the attention is on >SQL Server in everything I see about VS 2005. If you are experienced with Access, then you won't have much trouble learning MS SQL Server 2005. After you begin to understand stored procedures you will only use Access for single user stand alone applications. Go ahead and make the switch. You'll have much more pleasure than pain... [snip]
[quoted text, click to view]
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote in message news:%23tg3fgeDGHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > If your user is a good Office MS Access user and you want to let him make > his own reports with that. Than that can be a reason to do it in MS > Access. Yes indeed, but only for development purposes. SQL Server Reporting Services can import Access reports cleanly, so there's still no reason to use Access for anything more than prototyping. [quoted text, click to view] > And you understand it than of course, if you want to isolate that, than Sorry, much as I have tried, I *really* can't decipher that...
Kcamhi,
Completely agreeing with the text from William Vaughn, do I want to add the aspect of reports to it. If your user is a good Office MS Access user and you want to let him make his own reports with that. Than that can be a reason to do it in MS Access. And you understand it than of course, if you want to isolate that, than .......................... I hope this helps, Cor
Mark,
[quoted text, click to view] >> If your user is a good Office MS Access user and you want to let him make Does a good (expirienced) Office MS Access user direct know how to handle >> his own reports with that. Than that can be a reason to do it in MS >> Access. > > Yes indeed, but only for development purposes. SQL Server Reporting > Services can import Access reports cleanly, so there's still no reason to > use Access for anything more than prototyping. > the SQL Server Reporting Tool, AFAIK not, howeve maybe I make a mistake in that? [quoted text, click to view] >> And you understand it than of course, if you want to isolate that, than If you want an expirienced MS Office Accer user isolate from making reports > > Sorry, much as I have tried, I *really* can't decipher that... with your data, than you should not start to give him a database with a Jet engine Cor
Hello,
I have worked a lot on Jet and a little on SQL Server and MySQL. In my book the choices are really simple. If it's an app that you need to redistribute to a lot of people (read packaged applicatin) use Jet, if it's something that will rest on one PC or is made with a server architecture in mind use SQL. I don't why so many guys dislike Jet, but I think it is a pretty nice data storage paradigm, specially for packaged applications. Of course that doesn't mean it gives users the performance or functionality of SQL Server, but you can't pack SQL Server in your app's setup either. Cheers Cyril Gupta
[quoted text, click to view] "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@nwlink.com> wrote in message news:%23UvdxIbDGHA.344@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > SQL Server Express Edition has come a long way since the first versions of > MSDE. It has a real team at MS working on its functionality and usability. > I think the choice becomes more "why use JET" when it's been found > unsuitable for databases that contain healthcare or other data that must > be secure. It's not designed to be used in a server--it never was. It is > best accessed through its native interface (DAO)--not ADO, ODBC or OLEDB > or ADO.NET. It's COM-based and dependent on the MDAC stack which is of > itself problematic. No, SQL Server Express is not as simple to use as JET. > Deployment is more difficult, connecting is more difficult, management is > more difficult. I am not sure if I agree on deployment and management. It might be true but only if everything works fine. And with Access it can go wrong, very wrong as it is very much affected by dll hell. -- Miha Markic [MVP C#] RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com Blog: http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/
Hi KC,
Just to add, if you use SQL Express then upgrading to a full version of SQL Server is simple. Also, if the user wants to use Access for reports, it's easy enough to connect to SQL Server. -- Cindy Winegarden MCSD, Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP cindy_winegarden@msn.com www.cindywinegarden.com [quoted text, click to view] "kcamhi" <kcamhi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:BE0E8F2B-3A40-4751-AB6E-3728B389A7E8@microsoft.com... > Greetings - > > I'm working on a new application and need to select a database for it. I > was wondering if anyone had any views on tradeoffs between going with > Jet/Access vs. SQL Server 2005 Express.
Ah, while it's a compact DBMS engine, it's not secure. Most of the companies
I work with require a secure paradigm--one that the IT department can manage when necessary. JET does not fall into that category. I would choose SQL Mobile over JET any day. -- ____________________________________ William (Bill) Vaughn Author, Mentor, Consultant Microsoft MVP INETA Speaker www.betav.com/blog/billva www.betav.com Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. __________________________________ [quoted text, click to view] "Cyril Gupta" <nomail@mail.com> wrote in message news:uiHJwb0DGHA.644@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > Hello, > > I have worked a lot on Jet and a little on SQL Server and MySQL. In my > book the choices are really simple. If it's an app that you need to > redistribute to a lot of people (read packaged applicatin) use Jet, if > it's something that will rest on one PC or is made with a server > architecture in mind use SQL. > > I don't why so many guys dislike Jet, but I think it is a pretty nice data > storage paradigm, specially for packaged applications. Of course that > doesn't mean it gives users the performance or functionality of SQL > Server, but you can't pack SQL Server in your app's setup either. > > Cheers > Cyril Gupta >
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:48:21 GMT, George Gomez <news@greengalaxy.com>
[quoted text, click to view] wrote: [snip] [quoted text, click to view] >SQL Server Express 2005 is redistributable. You can also check out the >Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio Express - Community Technology >Preview to manage the database. > >As far as Access versus SQL server go with SQL server because it will be > a served database. > >George You're right about SQL Server Express, George. However, if you know that your application will be used by only one user and you can't be sure about his/her ability to understand maintaining a SQL Server database, then I believe Access is a good solution. In fact you can even compact and repair one when the user closes the application and they will never know you did it for them. Naturally I'm not talking about even the smallest enterprise application ;-). Otis Mukinfus http://www.otismukinfus.com
Cindy,
[quoted text, click to view] >Also, if the user wants to use Access for reports, it's easy enough to >connect to SQL Server. > True, stupid me, thanks for making a correction on my message. Lol Happy NewYear, Cor
Sure. But why compact/repair when the user turns off the system or it loses
power? This is not required in SQL Server. SQL Express is designed for this kind of application too. Sure, it has more power than you need, but it also has a lot more stability, security and less worries than any JET rig. Still think it's too much? Consider the SQL Mobile edition. It's light, fast and small and does not share JET's litany of issues. -- ____________________________________ William (Bill) Vaughn Author, Mentor, Consultant Microsoft MVP INETA Speaker www.betav.com/blog/billva www.betav.com Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. __________________________________ [quoted text, click to view] "Otis Mukinfus" <phony@emailaddress.com> wrote in message news:0bdjr11bhr3fmhj03uvefmmihm7c0l89ht@4ax.com... > On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:48:21 GMT, George Gomez <news@greengalaxy.com> > wrote: > > [snip] >>SQL Server Express 2005 is redistributable. You can also check out the >>Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio Express - Community Technology >>Preview to manage the database. >> >>As far as Access versus SQL server go with SQL server because it will be >> a served database. >> >>George > > You're right about SQL Server Express, George. > > However, if you know that your application will be used by only one > user and you can't be sure about his/her ability to understand > maintaining a SQL Server database, then I believe Access is a good > solution. In fact you can even compact and repair one when the user > closes the application and they will never know you did it for them. > > Naturally I'm not talking about even the smallest enterprise > application ;-). > > Otis Mukinfus > http://www.otismukinfus.com > http://www.tomchilders.com
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 19:17:40 -0800, "William \(Bill\) Vaughn"
[quoted text, click to view] <billvaRemoveThis@nwlink.com> wrote: >Sure. But why compact/repair when the user turns off the system or it loses >power? This is not required in SQL Server. SQL Express is designed for this >kind of application too. Sure, it has more power than you need, but it also >has a lot more stability, security and less worries than any JET rig. Still >think it's too much? Consider the SQL Mobile edition. It's light, fast and >small and does not share JET's litany of issues. You raise some good points Bill. I hadn't thought of SQL Mobile, although I did build an app that used it once for the PPC. Thanks for the input. Otis Mukinfus http://www.otismukinfus.com
[quoted text, click to view]
Cyril Gupta wrote: > Hello, > > I have worked a lot on Jet and a little on SQL Server and MySQL. In my book > the choices are really simple. If it's an app that you need to redistribute > to a lot of people (read packaged applicatin) use Jet, if it's something > that will rest on one PC or is made with a server architecture in mind use > SQL. > > I don't why so many guys dislike Jet, but I think it is a pretty nice data > storage paradigm, specially for packaged applications. Of course that > doesn't mean it gives users the performance or functionality of SQL Server, > but you can't pack SQL Server in your app's setup either. > > Cheers > Cyril Gupta > > SQL Server Express 2005 is redistributable. You can also check out the Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio Express - Community Technology Preview to manage the database. As far as Access versus SQL server go with SQL server because it will be a served database.
[quoted text, click to view] "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@nwlink.com> wrote in message news:OxCWTS%23DGHA.516@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > Ah, while it's a compact DBMS engine, it's not secure. Most of the > companies I work with require a secure paradigm--one that the IT > department can manage when necessary. JET does not fall into that > category. I would choose SQL Mobile over JET any day. > I think you mean SQL Server Express Edition, not SQL Server Mobile Edition. Mobile is only available for Microsoft Windows CE 5.0, Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows Mobile 2003 Software for Pocket PC, and Windows Mobile 5.0 http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/sqlmobile/sysreqs.mspx In particular not Windows XP Home or Professional and not Windows Server 2003. David
Ah no. SQL Mobile is being expanded to work on all Windows platforms. Try
it... let me know if it fails. -- ____________________________________ William (Bill) Vaughn Author, Mentor, Consultant Microsoft MVP INETA Speaker www.betav.com/blog/billva www.betav.com Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. __________________________________ "David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eyvZhEDEGHA.3920@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... [quoted text, click to view] > > "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@nwlink.com> wrote in message > news:OxCWTS%23DGHA.516@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >> Ah, while it's a compact DBMS engine, it's not secure. Most of the >> companies I work with require a secure paradigm--one that the IT >> department can manage when necessary. JET does not fall into that >> category. I would choose SQL Mobile over JET any day. >> > > I think you mean SQL Server Express Edition, not SQL Server Mobile > Edition. Mobile is only available for > > Microsoft Windows CE 5.0, > Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, > Windows Mobile 2003 Software for Pocket PC, > and Windows Mobile 5.0 > http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/sqlmobile/sysreqs.mspx > > In particular not Windows XP Home or Professional and not Windows Server > 2003. > > David >
[quoted text, click to view]
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:04:02 -0800, kcamhi <kcamhi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: ¤ Greetings - ¤ ¤ I'm working on a new application and need to select a database for it. I ¤ was wondering if anyone had any views on tradeoffs between going with ¤ Jet/Access vs. SQL Server 2005 Express. ¤ ¤ The database is going to sit on a server. I'm planning to implement .net ¤ remoting from my client objects to a wrapper around the database, so the ¤ database will be transparent to the distributed client apps. ¤ ¤ I'll also access the database for ad hoc reporting and data manipulation. ¤ ¤ I'm experienced with Access but haven't used SQL Server, so I would tend to ¤ lean toward using Access/Jet. However, it seems most of the attention is on ¤ SQL Server in everything I see about VS 2005. ¤ ¤ Is Jet still getting attention? ¤ ¤ What are the pros/cons of SQL Server vs. Jet? ¤ ¤ Thanks for any help Given the fact that you're working in a distributed environment and don't require database features other than a data store, I would recommend using SQL Server. An Access database is typically high maintenance and requires a fair amount of attention when used in a multi-user or distributed environment. It wasn't designed to be used in a distributed environment and does not scale well. If this was a simple client/server web or desktop app with a limited number of users then Access might be a suitable solution. But that doesn't sound like what you're describing. Paul ~~~~
Wow...I haven't seen this much Access bashing since I attended a FoxPro UG
back in '98 :) I've been developing Access apps since 1.0 days and still use it extensively today. Access is a great database for local apps, and its really hard to beat for its RAD capabilities. And anyone who says its pokey just hasn't used it extensively...or correctly. Try loading a 800,000 record table into a .Net datareader and see what happens! In Access, its a no brainer..and FAST. Sure...its not scalable, and security doesn't compare to SQL. But for local apps of up to 20 users, it can really be a great tool. And the new Office 12 version looks like its going to have some great new features. I say don't just judge by the tool..look at the application requiremnets.
Ah, I don't think we were bashing Access. We were attempting to make
developers just getting started aware that JET (the default DBMS engine in Access) is problematic for ANY business application. Access can, in fact be a front-end to SQL Server as well and yes, I agree it's a nice, easy development tool. We've seen companies large and small create applications with Access/JET or VS/JET only to regret the decision years down the road when they discover that the application by its very design is not scalable and that JET is incapable of protecting their data. We've seen companies that have 10,000 or more JET/Access databases (and Excel spreadsheets) managing critical data. Once HIPA and other federal laws forced these companies to protect private customer data, these databases became a nightmare for the company to purge. How many companies large and small can say that the data they manage is not sensitive in some way, is not important to the success of the business in some way and can be wantonly accessed as if the information it contains doesn't matter? As far as performance and architectural differences, loading 800,000 rows into any "client-side" data structure is a challenged way to approach any data query problem. If that's the way an application is designed, I don't wonder that it doesn't scale--it certainly won't support 20 users. -- ____________________________________ William (Bill) Vaughn Author, Mentor, Consultant Microsoft MVP INETA Speaker www.betav.com/blog/billva www.betav.com Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. __________________________________ [quoted text, click to view] "StepUP" <StepUP@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:C5A6D24E-889E-4C12-BD56-73CB266ED0B9@microsoft.com... > Wow...I haven't seen this much Access bashing since I attended a FoxPro UG > back in '98 :) > > I've been developing Access apps since 1.0 days and still use it > extensively > today. Access is a great database for local apps, and its really hard to > beat > for its RAD capabilities. And anyone who says its pokey just hasn't used > it > extensively...or correctly. > > Try loading a 800,000 record table into a .Net datareader and see what > happens! In Access, its a no brainer..and FAST. > > Sure...its not scalable, and security doesn't compare to SQL. > > But for local apps of up to 20 users, it can really be a great tool. And > the > new Office 12 version looks like its going to have some great new > features. > > I say don't just judge by the tool..look at the application requiremnets. > Sometimes Access can really be the best fit.
[quoted text, click to view]
"Otis Mukinfus" wrote: > I agree that Access is a good solution for local applications (with a > single user), but not for multiple users. I have also been using it > since Version 1.0. > > Otis Mukinfus Really...not for multiple users? I currently have a production app running (for the last 6 years) with up to 30 users (mostly inputs and edits) banging on it all day long. Runs liike a champ, very rarely crashes, and we put its data up on the company web site, where there can be up to 10 users querying the data via ASP.
Hi Bill,
I agree with much of what you say. And..BTW...the app doesnt try to read in 800,000 records in the user interface. I was just trying to make a point about how capable Access can be. And if a company has 10000 Access MDB's with important data floating around in the first place..someone in IT should be fired! :)
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 10:50:03 -0800, StepUP
[quoted text, click to view] <StepUP@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >Wow...I haven't seen this much Access bashing since I attended a FoxPro UG >back in '98 :) > >I've been developing Access apps since 1.0 days and still use it extensively >today. Access is a great database for local apps, and its really hard to beat >for its RAD capabilities. And anyone who says its pokey just hasn't used it >extensively...or correctly. > >Try loading a 800,000 record table into a .Net datareader and see what >happens! In Access, its a no brainer..and FAST. > >Sure...its not scalable, and security doesn't compare to SQL. > >But for local apps of up to 20 users, it can really be a great tool. And the >new Office 12 version looks like its going to have some great new features. > >I say don't just judge by the tool..look at the application requiremnets. >Sometimes Access can really be the best fit. I agree that Access is a good solution for local applications (with a single user), but not for multiple users. I have also been using it since Version 1.0. Otis Mukinfus http://www.otismukinfus.com
The problem is that these databases were all too often created by
"paradevelopers"--non-professionals that don't know how to build a safe, scalable application. Someone walks by and says "Hey, that's cool, can I have a copy of that?" and they walk off with a copy of the program with none of the understanding of the impact. The IT departments are doing what they can to purge these rogue databases. I no longer recommend JET databases for businesses--large or small. -- ____________________________________ William (Bill) Vaughn Author, Mentor, Consultant Microsoft MVP INETA Speaker www.betav.com/blog/billva www.betav.com Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. __________________________________ [quoted text, click to view] "StepUP" <StepUP@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:CDECAEE5-A31D-4359-ACBE-9EB8680226DF@microsoft.com... > Hi Bill, > > I agree with much of what you say. And..BTW...the app doesnt try to read > in > 800,000 records in the user interface. I was just trying to make a point > about how capable Access can be. > > And if a company has 10000 Access MDB's with important data floating > around > in the first place..someone in IT should be fired! :) > >
[quoted text, click to view]
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 10:50:03 -0800, StepUP <StepUP@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: ¤ Wow...I haven't seen this much Access bashing since I attended a FoxPro UG ¤ back in '98 :) ¤ ¤ I've been developing Access apps since 1.0 days and still use it extensively ¤ today. Access is a great database for local apps, and its really hard to beat ¤ for its RAD capabilities. And anyone who says its pokey just hasn't used it ¤ extensively...or correctly. ¤ ¤ Try loading a 800,000 record table into a .Net datareader and see what ¤ happens! In Access, its a no brainer..and FAST. ¤ ¤ Sure...its not scalable, and security doesn't compare to SQL. ¤ ¤ But for local apps of up to 20 users, it can really be a great tool. And the ¤ new Office 12 version looks like its going to have some great new features. ¤ ¤ I say don't just judge by the tool..look at the application requiremnets. ¤ Sometimes Access can really be the best fit. Echo what Bill said. Actually my company uses Access frequently in multi-user environments and we have a number of applications that depend upon it. However, none of those are distributed environments where Access has a significant tendency to fall over. It simply wasn't designed for this type of environment. Paul ~~~~
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |